You mean the sports betting case? You're right. But it is only a glimmer.

Article III Section 2 says in part-

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under the Constitution, the Laws of the United States..."

That gives the Courts jurisdiction over Laws passed by Congress under the Constitution. It's certainly a reasonable reading in my estimation.

Ultimately I agree with John Jay that questions regarding the meaning of the Constitution must be referred back to the People, but where the meaning of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous, the Courts should be telling Congress they can't exceed or ignore the Constitution and declaring laws passed outside of the grants of power unconstitutional.

So - to state the obvious - the concept of "states rights" is often at odds with individual rights.

States have granted powers and assigned duties, not rights.

Check you state Constitution to see if your state government has been granted any power to stop you from eating double cheeseburgers or smoking pot. Maybe it has, but your state Constitution almost certainly recognizes your Right to general Liberty.

Check you state Constitution to see if your state government has been granted any power to stop you from eating double cheeseburgers or smoking pot. Maybe it has, but your state Constitution almost certainly recognizes your Right to general Liberty.

You don't subscribe to the idea that the constitution grants to states all powers it does not assign to the national government?

As I hope you are, I am mystified as to where states, cities, counties derive their power to forbid vices. You seem to have a handle on where they are granted power to tax economic activities but you've yet to explain that.

You don't subscribe to the idea that the constitution grants to states all powers it does not assign to the national government?

The Constitution leaves all of the powers with the states that were not removed from the states by the Constitution. All powers not granted to the national government are "reserved" to the people and the states.

For instance, prior to joining the union, each independent state had the power to declare war and to raise armies to fight wars. That power was lost when Congress was given the exclusive power to declare war.

The national government is not given any power to "grant rights" to any state or person. The very idea that such a power might exist shows a misunderstanding of the true meaning of Rights.

As I hope you are, I am mystified as to where states, cities, counties derive their power to forbid vices. You seem to have a handle on where they are granted power to tax economic activities but you've yet to explain that.

The power to make laws governing people's behavior existed in the colonies under English law. Nobody ever bothered to remove them. They are generally referred to as "police powers" because their most important intention and function is to govern and reduce criminal behavior like theft and assault and murder. They are what is called retained or reserved powers. Powers that existed prior to the Constitution that were not altered or removed.

If it seemed reasonable to the government of your town to control criminal behavior like spitting tobacco juice all over the sidewalks, they did.

Many Blue Laws were enacted because the majority of people in towns or states thought that it was criminal (in the eyes of God anyway) to engage in trade on Sundays. Religions are conservative and "progressive" at their core. They seek to help create the world that God wants and to make people better so they will avoid sin.

The same conservative "progressive" impulse led to prohibition and all sorts of laws governing the use and sale of alcohol outside of prohibition. The same with the vices of gambling and prostitution.

In most cases, these laws were enacted because the majority of people in the community wanted them enacted and made their voices heard.

People who like democracy should take note that it sometimes has results you might not like individually. So does tyranny of course, and tyrannical governments have often been even more Puritanical than democratic ones.

Libertarians are, as you know, having some success in having "vice" laws repealed.

"Progressives" in the meantime are trying to make free speech an illegal vice.

Edit: BTW, the granted power of taxation includes the power to tax anything, not just economic activity. That's why abandoning the limits on the taxing power has had such bad effects.